Wikia

Harry Potter Wiki

Talk:Petunia Dursley

12,000pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Jealousy

Okay, I don't really like Petunia, but I feel a little sorry for her. If I had a sibling that got accepted to Hogwarts, but I didn't, I'd be jealous too. I don't think I'd stoop so low as to calling them freaks but you know what I mean. --Mistress Remy 19:45, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yah I get what you mean but I do think she loved Lily and Harry but she let her jealousness show alot more than her love.

---CholcolateFrogs

There is another cause why I can understand Petunia's jealousness. I don't like her too because of her cruel behaviour towards Harry who is absolutely innocent. But when it was revealed that Lily was a witch the parents were proud like: Lily here and Lily there. It seems they paid less attention towards Petunia. That does hurt a child. That Lily was a witch and Petunia not was not the fault of Petunia. In this point she is as innocent as Harry who is a wizard. Harry granger 19:53, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Main quote

I was just wondering if the quote at the top of Petunia's page was the best choice. I watched that deleted scene and really liked the way she said it but shouldn't we make it one from the books or one that actually made it into the movie? Correct me if I'm wrong, I just thought that would make more sense :)

I agree. It also blatantly contradicts canon, as in the book Petunia leaves Harry with a "Well, goodbye", without even looking at him. What quote should we put there instead? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:46, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
Well, Jo herself said that there are things from the movies that aren't in the books but that fit the story, things that she didn't come up with, but, she wish she did. I think this is one of them, I loved this scene, and, a lot of fans agree. It shows a sensitive side of Petunia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diegoavila (talkcontribs).
Regardless, it directly contradicts canon, as Petunia left Harry without saying a word. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 16:53, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Birth year

This article currently states that Petunia was born in 1958. While I recall it being revealed that she was Lily's older sister in "The Prince's Tale," I don't recall it being specified how much older, so I think this information should be removed from the article unless a source to verify it can be provided. Starstuff (Owl me!) 05:32, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly.I also believe Petunia was born in 1958,not 1959.Thats why I keep changing the dates. 85.75.74.179 12:16, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

It has been changed back to 1959 and I'd like to know where's the proof that 1959 is correct. Whoever changed it back didn't think it necessary to prove their opinion. Josef D. (talk) 19:12, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Death

How do we know Petunia died in 1997? 85.75.74.179 12:15, August 21, 2011 (UTC)


She didn´t. The dates at the beginning say she is known to have during that period. So, she lived in 1997, wasn´t dead.--Rodolphus 12:18, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

The way you write it,it seems that Petunia died in 1997. 85.75.74.179 12:48, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

Im gonna say it once more.The way you write it,it lokks like Petunia died in 1997.Thats why I keep reverting the article. 85.75.119.29 16:34, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Someone seems not to have understood your point. The way it is written it really sounds as if she died in 1997. But she didn't; the Dursleys were just shoved out of the way in case Voldemort was trying to get at them in his effort to catch Harry. Josef D. (talk) 19:26, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Middle name?

Wherefrom do we know that Petunia's middle name is Violet as mentioned in the article? Harry granger 20:22, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Again put in. Where is the source? Harry granger 14:03, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

late magic (cut subplot)

Hey, I was looking at some old interviews and I'm seeing references to a subplot of the books of someone displaying magic late in life. Is it possible this is Petunia? Or maybe Dudley? Just a thought 174.252.45.143 01:19, September 12, 2011 (UTC)Lorchyism23

J.K. addressed that somewhere.......it might've been her FAQ section on the Web site..........she was planning on it but changed it.Alumeng 23:40, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

I was curious about this too, actually. I've seen here reference said subplot, and from the time that she denied Petunia being a Squib but said she was something "very different" I'm guessing it was to do with her, but I can;t for the life of me find here actually flat out saying who it was supposed to be. If someone does know and an share the link I'd be eternally grateful—Green Zubat (owl me!). 00:36, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

The original Aunt Petunia?

Just though I'd mention another pop-culture character called "Aunt Petunia", which may or may not have influenced JKR's choice of name.

The Fantastic Four's Thing (Ben Grimm) also grew up as an orphan, and was raised by his Aunt Petunia and Uncle (Jacob). In contrast though, they were kind; Petunia was his "favourite aunt".

The Thing often mentions his "Aunt Petunia", and it's possible that JKR may have encountered the name here, even if she wasn't directly referencing it in the books, or had even forgotten having heard it. According to the Petunia Grimm Marvel Wiki article, the Thing "has made numerous references to Aunt Petunia over the years." --xensyriaT 19:06, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Floruit

I do agree with those who don't like the "floruit" information. It is confusing, since it makes a reader believe she died in 1997, while she did not. Besides, on the basis of a spot check I did, there are not many pages that sport this term. I am of the idea, if a consensus is reached, to remove the term "floruit" from other pages that show it.

I take that the 1959 date is the year of her birth, if so, let us keep that in. MinorStoop 19:51, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Right - most people wouldn't understand this "floruit" thing. It's the first time I heard about it, too. And it really made things look as if Petunia had died in 1997. And, where from do you take it that Petunia's year of birth is 1959? All we know is that she's Lily's elder sister. She could as well have been born in 1956 oder 1954 or 1949. Josef D. (talk) 20:01, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
I deleted it deliberately - far as I can tell, this is the only page that uses it. Can we solve the issue before starting an edit war? MinorStoop 20:06, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
That would work if the editor managed to read this discussion instead of unnecessarily reverting the deletion. Josef D. (talk) 20:08, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
HB is generally a sensible guy, but he has a bit of a tendency to overreact. Since this makes us two of a kind, I can't really blame him for it, can I? :-P MinorStoop 20:12, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
This is NOT the only page on this wiki that uses a floruit. Do a search for "fl." and you'll get about a hundred results. - Nick O'Demus 20:13, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Nick, you're besides the point. We're discussing the fact that to most people this "floruit" does not mean anything at all and that it makes things look to many as if Petunia died in 1997 which is NOT the case. That's why this was deleted. Josef D. (talk) 20:17, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Discussion is fine, but it should not be removed until/unless a consensus is reached on the matter. - Nick O'Demus 20:21, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
I don't see you making much of an effort to reach a consensus since you seem to ignore most of what MinorStoop and I have been discussing here. Josef D. (talk) 20:27, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
I have read this discussion, and I'd like to point out that we shouldn't just get rid of something because we don't understand it. "fl." ("floruit") is a very useful means of informing readers of the approximate time we know a character to have been active during the books. Once we know what it is used for, it becomes much more helpful for us, and two people (Nick O'Demus and I) agree to use it here. Two people (MinorStoop and Josef D.) don't want to use it. Assuming this is a legitimate vote, I should point out that one more vote one either side would seal the discussion. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 20:31, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
The term is generally used and accepted in English language reference work, and would therefore seem suitable here. As a Latin-derived term, it is understood in a bibliographical sense throughout European languages, wherever they may flourish around the globe. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 20:38, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Actually, a proper voting consensus requires plus 3 on one side, not just 3. As I stated, removing the use of the floruit would affect over a hundred other articles on this wiki, so this is not something that can be decided be just a few minutes' debate, and the standard practice is for the article to be kept as-is until the matter has been sufficiently discussed - Nick O'Demus 20:40, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Floruit is not a made-up term; it's a concept actually used in genealogy and history. As we are not being misleading (the use of the notation is correct and matches other uses of it in the fields of knowledge I specified), so we can't really be held accountable if someone does not know the meaning of it, that's not our fault. If you come across something you do not understand while reading something, it's expected that you look into it so that you understand it; if someone does not know what that little "fl." behind the dates means, then he or she should research it -- I think this is common sense.
Banning this kind of things on the basis that "most people do not know what it is" would be akin a the wiki-wide ban on the use of words like "borborygmus", "garrulous" or "pulchritude" just because they are not common words and would be, perhaps, unfamiliar to most of the readers. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:40, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Yep, there are a number of pages that use the "floruit" diction - type "fl." in the search engine. I haven't checked all the results, as I probably should have, but from the cases present in the first two pages, it is pretty clear that that the term should be interpreted as "known to be active" (choose your own term here) in the date(s) given, sometimes one, sometimes two. It does not matter whether they are also the dates of birth and death. Furthermore they are all either mentioned characters or with a very tenuous relationship with the saga (what does Matthew of the Gospel writer has to do with it?).
Petunia Dursley is an important secondary character of the books, and none of the ones I've checked (from Minerva McGonagall to the other Dursleys) show it. Why should "she" show it?
Another two points - 1997 is not her year of death; and this is confusing. How do we know 1959 is her year of birth, and why isn't there a reference for it? MinorStoop 20:43, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Nobody claimed that it was a made-up term. It's just not quite understandable to most people. And things which are worded in a way so that they can't quite be understood very well can be quite misleading or can, at least, be  understood to be so. Second, at least the year 1997 has to go. Even though Petunia's last activity we know from the novels and movies takes place in 1997 that doesn't mean she's actually stopped doing things. Given her approximate date of birth she is very likely still "craning over her neighbours' fences". Anyway, that term "florit" can't be all that common. I've never ever seen it in eight years of activity in the Wikipedia. Josef D. (talk) 20:55, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
The term does not indicate she died then, only that this is the last reliable date for which activity on her part is recorded. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 20:59, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
What he said. Floruit expresses the known period of time we know for sure that the person was alive. Besides, the infobox template does make it less ambiguous since specifies she was born before 1959 and does not provide year of death. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:04, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Maybe not, but it makes it look like it. Anyway, it's still possible that J. K. Rowling writes another HP novel in which Petunia makes an appearance. I suggest that we just remove the 1997 as it can be interpreted in a misleading way (even though a few people here do not wish to admit that). And, I may remind you, MinorStoop asked for a reference to her year of birth which may, or may not, be 1959. Josef D. (talk) 21:08, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Actually, at this point, I think that the real problem is why _only_ Petunia Dursley, among the relatively important, if secondary, characters has the "floruit" diction, and not the others - the other Dursleys, Ministry staff, Hogwarts staff, the (non-Ron) Weasleys, etc... MinorStoop 21:13, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
I mean, all the pages I've checked (not very many, I admit) are of people with quite tenuous a relationship with the saga! MinorStoop 21:14, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
The word establishes neither birth nor death, but only the corroborated period between the two. For most other significant characters, a date has been specified. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}}
"I mean, all the pages I've checked (not very many, I admit) are of people with quite tenuous a relationship with the saga!"
Beedle the Bard, Antioch Peverell, Cadmus Peverell, Dedalus Diggle, Rowena Ravenclaw, Poppy Pomfrey, Rolanda Hooch, Grawp, Irma Pince, Marvolo Gaunt, Morfin Gaunt... - Nick O'Demus 21:28, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
We understood as much now. But the point is that it's not very understandable to many users. I just checked with the Wikipedia, and they are using "active" instead of "fl". This would be much clearer to the user, while the "fl" thing has some kind of a 19th century odour, hasn't it? Josef D. (talk) 21:22, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Then why not also Vernon Dursley for example? 21:33, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

I don't like the current infobox image. Petunia looks ugly with an angry face.

I don't know if it's fair to say she looks ugly, but a smile does make everyone look better. Personally, I think Petunia looks a bit like Voldemort in Image B: flat nose, wide eyes, frowning. I therefore feel Image A should be selected out of the three provided. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 13:07, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki